Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

As a Sanders supporter, I've started trying to accept the reality of Sanders not becoming the 45th President of the United States, let alone beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. But as other Sanders supporters tear each other apart, I can't help but wonder… What went wrong? Was it ever possible? Could Sanders have won the Democratic Primary? And if so, could he have beaten Donald Trump in the election and become the next President? And if he did become President, would it go well? How would've it played out? Could he have gone through his policies?

What are your opinions, KYM?

No. He's to extreme. You can't do what he did(be a socialist) and expect to beat someone like Clinton. If there was a republican president maybe, but their isn't.

The other candidates were simply more marketable I feel like. Ya got Hillary with the "I am woman therefore oppressed, also I agree with all your opinions" and Trump with the "I open my mouth and twelve news agencies make me front page". Bernie just didn't have that kind of huge draw to his name like the other nominees.

A part of me also feels like he didn't display any backbone in the primaries. From the letting BLM protestors take over his rallies to his (from my perspective) lax effort in beating out Hillary's campaign. He seemed to avoid aggressive tactics but in doing so kinda got pushed aside.

Ultimately his campaign was built on a lot of hype, but didn't leave quite the Bern imagined.

I think it was simply the mainstream media blatantly refusing to cover sanders because he's a obvious threat to corporation bottom line and hold on the U.S. Government and economy. I mean we're talking about a media thats more willing to cover an empty trump podium than sanders present himself. If people were more informed about sanders actual proposed polices instead of "lol communism", then the outcome would be very different.

Another problem was his voter-base. The young people and the people who support his kind of policies are very lazy and don't care about much enough to do anything about it beyond slacktivism, and that's coming from a former bernie supporter. He might have actually won the primaries if people actually went and voted. Instead the silent voting majority of the middle-aged old ladies went to the primaries and rigged them. When people say their vote doesn't count so that's why they're not voting it pisses me off for this exact reason. Of course it won't count if all the reasonable people don't vote.

The media also helped to kill bernie. They tried to take down trump by putting everything he said on the news in a negative way only giving him the win basically and they intentionally sliced out any news of bernie at any opportunity. The media practically decided this election when you think about it and it probably has many times before. I mean think about for how long the media touted bernie as losing while he still had a chance for a long long time statistically.

@Patrick

I wouldn't call Bernie overly extreme at all especially in comparison with other candidates this election. Sure he isn't very moderate but I wouldn't call some of his economic positions more extreme than some of the things trump has claimed to support. And not even just trump, cruz and others have also been pretty crazy. Extremism isn't the problem if it was Bernie's campaign would have died long before it did and so would trump's.

I hate how the word "socialism" carries such a stigma in America kind of left over from the 20th century. Sure lots of socialism is bad but lots of capitalism is bad too. Like we remember soviet russia collapsing to communism and all but are we forgetting industrial America when child labor was a thing and you had rat parts and bleach in your food? When train tycoons owned basically the means to everything? That's the good ol' completely free market at work. Both of the 2 suck on their own the debate is which we should have more of. Bernie by no means wanted to transform us into a full-blown socialist state even disagreeing with what he did say aside.

Like disclaimer, I'm honestly kind of indifferent about Bernie's economics I have basically no opinion on or knowledge of economics I just liked his social stuff, petty I know but it's all I know. It could very well be that Bernie's economics would be bad and I've had it explained and proven to me that subsidized college wouldn't work. I'm just trying to show that there's an unnecessary dogma around "the socialisms".

>What went wrong?

Too slow of a start. Remember "sick and tired of hearing about your emails?" He didn't try and take on the front runner like an underdog's supposed to and didn't start gaining momentum until the hill was too steep to climb.

Engaging the base. He was abysmal engaging the Democratic base--Hispanics and blacks--that are extremely vital to a large number of early states. Had he more aggressively tried to target them and show how he was better than Clinton (super predators, etc.), he could have made up some ground and at least limited the curbstomping he got in the South.

Connections. Sanders was always an outsider to the DNC. That appeals to the anti-establishment folks, but you need connections and endorsements--especially in the Democratic party where superdelegates are a thing. He isolated the very people who could have helped him the most with all the "DNC is corrupt and undemocratic" talk.

Platform. That New York Daily News meeting killed him. It showed one of his big weaknesses: he had ideas that appealed to a lot of progressives, but no idea how to effectively implement them. You can talk the talk but you have to walk the walk and show how those ideas will be used. A lot of the older, more cynical voters that know how the game's played saw that his plans were more idealism than realism and voted accordingly.

>Was it ever possible?
Anything's possible. Everyone said Nixon was done in '62 after his Last Press Conference and look what happened. It would have been very hard--and likely would have caused a schism within the Democratic Party like the Brits are currently experiencing with Labour--but it could have happened.

>Could he have beaten Donald Trump in the election
Honestly, if everything were the same, I think Trump and the superpacs would have ripped him apart. He's been in Congress for decades and never spearheaded a major bill, his plans appeared flimsy to the New York Daily News, which is basically the print version of the Huffington Post, and his one track message (evil banks! Wall Street!) with little focus on other important topics (foreign affairs, terrorism, etc.) would have been highlighted.

>Would it go well?
No. The GOP would never back universal healthcare, ripping the Federal Reserve apart, raising the payroll tax on everyone, destroying an entire industry (healthcare) of the economy, and free college. The blue dogs would happily join the GOP as well (especially with the Dems defending their Senate seats in 2018). I doubt a single one of his plans would make it to a floor vote, and the "revolution" would implode by the 2018 midterms when all the young people that voted him in once again fail to show up.

What went wrong?

His first name wasn't Hillary.

His last name wasn't Clinton.

The DNC primary season was a farce this election cycle. Clinton, as the establishment candidate, essentially began the primaries with a 700 delegate count lead (which is just under a third of total needed to secure the nomination) due to super delegates. There were multiple states which Sanders won but received less delegates because Clinton received a proportion of the delegates and the pledges of super delegates (who in most cases are elected officials). That advantage was in addition to the benefit of having the party's media, fundraising, and logrolling apparatus behind her.

This primary campaign was designed to push Clinton over the finish line, come hell or high water. The same was true for the Republican primary and Jeb!, but things didn't quite work out as the RNC planned.

I'm not a fan of Sanders or his policies, but I have to give him credit for the success he managed to achieve against a well-oiled political machine.

Assuming he won the primary. He definitely would have won election.
Doubt he would have gotten much passed because the republicans would always shoot him down.

He also had a really slow start. I knew Hillary was probably going to be the nominee 2 years ago and I didn't even pay attention to politics back then. I saw Hillary 2016 bumper stickers in mid 2014. My government teacher said the nominee would be Clinton or Biden but most likely Clinton. The fact is, a lot of people had their minds made up well before anyone knew who Sanders was, including lots of superdelegates.

Hillary Clinton had the machine behind her. Years of building up the right delegates, years of building the right infrastructure, and years of experience of how to run a campaign. Literally, it was her's to lose. The email scandal ended up being a major element of contention that Bernie didn't focus on early on, instead even defended her on it. The reality of how dire the situation would get, was beyond him at the time.

In the General Election he would have probably had a hard time defending his economic platform. The reality is, people vote with their wallets, and even among his own supporters a vast majority weren't willing to pay more than $500 a year in taxes for his proposals.

If he would have won, it would have been a lame duck Presidency.

Well, he just endorsed Hillary, the movement's dead.

I heard some audio and it seemed like the crowd was a lot more excited for El Berno than Clinton.

Judging by some twitter reactions, at least half of Bernie supporters are like this

He endorsed Hillary after she had pretty much won. Same way the Republicans were at a constant feud with each other but when Trump won (or they lost) they were happy to endorse him.

The movement has only just begun. Bernie was never expecting to win the nomination. It's a miracle he even got as far as he did. Bernie moved the Hillary platform left by virtue of his popularity, and by extension the platform of the DNC. Political change doesn't happen overnight. We'll be feeling the ripples of his movement when the mostly young base becomes the bulk of the voting base.

{ Same way the Republicans were at a constant feud with each other but when Trump won (or they lost) they were happy to endorse him. }

Bernie was never a Democrat tho, that's why everybody thought he'd go to one of the smaller independent parties instead of selling out to the DNC. It's more exactly like Trump losing the nomination then endorsing Bush despite having trashed him throughout his campaign.

Join us again in a few months for Part 2: A Donald Trump Presidency – Was it Even Possible?

He's basically in Sanders' position atm. Even if he manages to get past Clinton's massive influence and win, he'll be in a position where he won't be able to get any support or funding for his extreme policies and won't be able to get anything done.

The odds were against Bernie and all the other Democrat candidates from the start. At the beginning of 2015, when people will wondering who would run for 2016, the most prevalent question was "Hillary and who else?" for the left.

1. The Clinton machine was a giant among ants. Other than Martin O'Malley (who bombed on a catastrophic level), can you name anyone else who ran for the Democrat primary? I personally supported Jim Webb, who was in and out in the blink of an eye. The race horses of the other candidates were already dead at the starting line; Clinton had a jet pack attached to hers.

2. Clinton had the backing of the Obama administration the entire time. She also had the support of superdelegates, which can be bought out. Bernie had neither of these things. In fact, since Bernie called out the blundering of Clinton, Obama and company for shit they've done in the Middle East for the past several years, he quickly earned their ire.

3. Bernie was the quintessential limping deer by the pond. He couldn't match the Clinton campaign's experienced maneuvering. Also, when viewing Bernie's campaign, you have to look at the demographics of his supporters. A LOT of them are college millennials who, despite defending Sanders to the hilt, will not be seen at a voting booth.

4. As Clinton won state after state after state, you can see how Bernie's stances changed over the months. It came to a point where he was telling the superdelegates, the people who gave the finger to, to back him instead of Clinton.

5. Finally, you can also give credit to the media. Bernie was a punching bag for both left and right-wing media outlets. The left constantly criticized Bernie for his views, labeling his followers as "Bernie bros" who apparently hated the idea of having a female president. The right, on the other hand, called him a "communist socialist" who wanted to give students free college. Instead of focusing on Clinton, they decided to pick off a straggler.

I'm not the biggest fan of Bernie, and I think his supporters are unbearable. But to you guys who frequently attribute socialism to communism, I'm going to remind you of this:

In the United States of America, we have socialist aspects. We have, to name a few:
1. public police
2. public fire departments
3. public postal systems
4. public waste disposal
5. public libraries
6. public parks
7. public hospitals

If you think that socialism is the same as communism, you are terribly, terribly misinformed. Socialism does have a lot of bad aspects. So does Capitalism, for that matter. No system is perfect. But to act like Socialism is "lolcommunism" is absolutely ludicrous when virtually everyone in the country is utilizing Socialist aspects.

"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment."

Public police, fire departments, or public postal systems, aren't socialist if we follow that definition. Again, following that definition, then the U.S is nowhere close to Socialism thanks to the massive wealth gap and general hatred towards the word in the United States … Without the majority even knowing the definition of Socialism, the main definition being "healthcare" and "more taxes".

If we also (again) follow that definition, then Bernie would be a social-democrat and not a socialist, a social-democrat would advocate for a welfare state to create a more just or fair system, while still keeping Capitalism and private ownership.

On the subject of Bernie becoming president; I doubt he would survive the presidency in the first place, he's pretty old. Bernie got pretty far, but it doesn't matter if the media's not on your side like with Hillary.

He ran as Democrat probably because he knew third parties didn't stand a chance at first. Remember this was super early in the election so Trump wasn't the Republican nominee yet.

Him dropping out and running third-party would have just made it super obvious that he was using the democratic party and would have hurt him later as it could have been used as ammunition against him.

Bernie just tried to run too clean of a race. He ran mostly on donations, when he had a chance to drill Clinton about the email thing (when it was still a thing), and just tried to get out and say what he wanted to pass as politics.

I imagine if he had won the president position, the next race he would have ran Third-Party. In some states they don't even include third-party candidates on the ballots but if the president ran Third-Party you would bet your ass they would put them on the ballot.

So the media hated Sanders because he won't do well for greedy corporations?

He won't do well for the vast majority of Americans either.

{ If people were more informed about sanders actual proposed polices instead of “lol communism”, then the outcome would be very different. }

Love this hilariously delusional narrative that Bernie only lost because nobody knew about his policies. Everybody knew exactly what he wanted to do, it's just that his plans only appealed to high school students. You guys will understand when you're older~

I couldn't count the among of posters on this very site that think socialism and communism are the exact same thing.

Well is it unreasonable for highschool students liking sanders because he's for those who don't want to be screwed over right after graduation by starvation wages, expensive healthcare, and college debts?

*American posters

"My unpreffered presidential candidate has socialist ideas, so he's probably a commie bastard."

Communism and Socialism is closer than people would like to admit. Private property is illegal in both Communism and Socialism, instead, there is personal property where ownership is based on personal use; you would own your house and toothbrush because said things would be personal.

In both Socialism and Communism, the workplaces are controlled by the workers, both Socialism and Communism seek to abolish classes. Some forms of Socialism would advocate for a free market (Mutualism, no bosses or hierarchy, no state), and some with no state or markets whatsoever (Communism & Anarchism, stateless societies).

Bernie still got some socialist beliefs, but he's not a "full" socialist. Bernie believes that more workers should be able to own their businesses, basically co-ops. He doesn't seek to remove Capitalism or replace private property, but he's obviously still left-wing.

The main problem I foresaw with a Bernie Sanders presidency is that nothing would get done.
Due to how the house is primarily republican right now, they'd be against anything Bernie brought up, especially if it involved pseudo-socialist ideas. Most likely, we'd get a presidency where almost absolutely nothing of value would be done due to a deadlock.